P a g e | 1 APHC010203572024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 24th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 10297 OF 2024 Between: 1. K.Ravichandra Raju, S/o Reddaiah Raju, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Hostel Welfare Officer, Gr-I, R/o D.No. 19-10-97/2/401,Sri Sai Srinivasa Nilayas, New Indira Nagar, Tirupati Urban-517 501 ...Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, BC Welfare Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 2. The Director of BC Welfare, State of Andhra Pradesh, 2nd Floor, Vishal Residency,VR Siddhartha College, Tadigadapa, Kanuru, Vijayawada. 3. The District Collector, (B.C.W), YSR kadapa District. 4. P Musthaq Ahmed, S/o. Mohammed Hanif, Aged 61 years, Asst.B.C. Welfare officer, Deva Nagar, Beside Govt. B.C Boys Hostel, Nandhyal, Nadhyal District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing the rejection P a g e | 2 order dated 28.02.2022 denying Petitioner's request for notional promotion, seniority on par with the Respondent No.4 and the zonal seniority list issued on 13.10.2023 and promotion of the Respondent No.4 on 14.03.2024 as Assistant BC Welfare Officer ignoring Petitioner's case as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Rule-16h of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and set aside the same and further declare that the Petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer, Grade I with effect from 16.07.2018 and further promotion to the post of Assistant BC Welfare Officer with effect from 14.03.2024 on par with his junior with all consequential benefits and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to immediately consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer, Grade I with effect from 16.07.2018, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: M SRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following order: P a g e | 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 10297 OF 2024 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “…….to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing the rejection order dated 28.02.2022 denying Petitioner's request for notional promotion, seniority on par with the Respondent No.4 and the zonal seniority list issued on 13.10.2023 and promotion of the Respondent No.4 on 14.03.2024 as Assistant BC Welfare Officer ignoring Petitioner's case as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Rule-16h of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and set aside the same and further declare that the Petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer, Grade I with effect from 16.07.2018 and further promotion to the post of Assistant BC Welfare Officer with effect from 14.03.2024 on par with his junior with all consequential benefits …” 2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that, pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.27302 of 2021, dated 02.12.2021, his seniority was reconsidered under Rule 16(h) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. Accordingly, vide proceedings dated 28.02.2022, writ petitioner was placed at Sl.No.4, while the 4th respondent was placed at Sl.No.6. While undertaking the said exercise, the respondents failed to consider the case of G.Sreenivasulu Reddy and, consequently, did not correctly determine the consequential promotional claims. Though the 4th respondent was promoted from the post of Welfare Officer, Grade-II to Hostel Welfare Officer, Grade-I P a g e | 4 and was granted notional seniority, the respondents failed to consider the writ petitioner's claim for promotion against the vacancies that arose on account of the retirement of K. Prabhakar Rao, G. Sreenivasulu Reddy, K. Venkata Subbaiah and C.Venugopal Reddy. According to the writ petitioner, he was senior to the 4th respondent and was therefore entitled to be considered for promotion against the available vacancies. However, despite such vacancies being available, the respondents failed to consider the petitioner's claim. The writ petitioner therefore assails the said action as being contrary to the seniority position determined pursuant to the orders of this Court and as having deprived him of his legitimate claim for promotion. 3. Respondents filed a counter-affidavit denying most of the averments made in the writ petition. The relevant portions thereof are extracted hereunder: 24…………. the Petitioner is not eligible for assigning Notional Seniority in the cadre of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-l w.e.f. 16.07.2018 on par with his junior Sri P.Musthaq Ahammad as the Government have accorded permission to assign Notional seniority w.e.f. 16.07.2018 to Sri G.Sreenivasulu Reddy, Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-ll in the cadre of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-l on par with Sri P.Musthaq Ahammad, Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-l who is the senior to the Petitioner Sri K.Ravi Chandra Raju duly relaxing the Rule 33(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 vide G.O.Rt.No.167, B.C.Welfare Department, dated: 30.12.2021. 25. In reply to Para No.6, it is respectfully submitted that, it is a fact that, the Respondent No.4 Sri P.Musthaq Ahammad has passed the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I Paper-I on 22.05.2024, whereas the Petitioner has passed the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-l P a g e | 5 Paper-I on 13.07.1997. But Sri G.Sreenivasulu Reddy, Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-ll has passed the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-l Paper-l on 13.06.1993 and senior to the Petitioner has already assigned Notional Seniority in the cadre of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-l w.e.f. 16.7.2018 on par with Sri P.Musthaq Ahammad, Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-l and the Petitioner is not eligible for assigning Notional Seniority w.e.f. 16.07.2018 on par with the Respondent No.4. 4. Heard Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Varun Shyam Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader. 5. The sole reason assigned by the respondents for not considering the petitioner’s claim is that, though the 4th respondent passed the Account Test for Subordinate Officers, Part-I, Paper-I on 22.05.2024, he was placed above the petitioner and promoted pursuant to the fixation of seniority under Rule 33(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. In fixing the relevant seniority, the respondents took into consideration the case of G.Sreenivasulu Reddy, who had passed the Account Test on 13.06.1993. Since the petitioner had passed the Account Test for Subordinate Officers, Part-I only on 13.07.1997, subsequent to G. Sreenivasulu Reddy, the respondents treated the petitioner as not entitled to be considered for promotion and, consequently, did not consider his claim for promotion. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner had passed the Account Test for Subordinate Officers, Part-I, Paper-I in the year 1997, whereas the 4th respondent passed the said test only on 22.05.2024. Nevertheless, the respondents placed the 4th respondent above the petitioner and extended the benefit of promotion to him, P a g e | 6 notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had already been assigned notional seniority with effect from 16.07.2018. The respondents also failed to consider the petitioner’s claim against the available vacancies. 7. The respondents have not assigned any independent or cogent reason for denying the petitioner’s claim, either in the impugned proceedings or in the counter-affidavit. The averments in the counter-affidavit merely reiterate the reasoning contained in the impugned proceedings and do not disclose any additional basis for overlooking the petitioner’s claim for promotion, particularly when his claim for notional seniority had already been recognized with effect from 16.07.2018. 8. In view of the above circumstances, the impugned proceedings dated 28.02.2022 cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for notional seniority in the cadre of Hostel Welfare Officer, Grade-I, on par with the 4th respondent, who is admittedly junior to the petitioner, and extend to the petitioner the consequential benefit of such notional seniority for the purpose of all further promotions. The respondents shall accordingly re-fix the petitioner’s seniority and consider his case for promotion to the higher posts by reckoning the said notional seniority. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential service benefits arising therefrom, including notional fixation of pay and other attendant benefits, in accordance with law. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to payment of arrears of salary for the period during which he did not actually discharge the duties of the promotional post. P a g e | 7 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 24.08.2026 SAK P a g e | 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 10297 OF 2024 Date: 24.08.2026 SAK